SteeljawscribeInteresting proposal in the most recent Joint Forces Quarterly centers on abolishing the position of Secretary of Defense and OSD. The full article is here. Salient points include:
- The office has too broad a span of control;
- JCS advice is too often limited or distorted;
- It has proved to be a source of unending conflict within and outside of the Executive Branch
| 2.5 |
Tags: 4 Comments
4 responses so far ↓
Eliminate the OSD and SecDef - would equal more power to the White House staff, even less chance of differing opinions reaching the President’s ear.
Not if the Service Secretaries were re-instated as full up cabinet members as they were prior to the 1947 National Security Act which created the position of SecDef and OSD organization. Some valid concerns that may be raised by such a move, however, would include JCS morphing into a General Staff, concerns over what to do with the plethora of agencies that operated under SecDef (DIA, MDa, etc.) and their role, or potential role as Combat Support Agencies and, of course, inter-service rivalries, though one can argue that aspect has been and always will be with s in one form or another forever.
The author’s point, if I got it right, was that the current office has ill-served the Presidency since its inception and too often overrides advice and recommendations from the JCS, especially in a time of war.
- SJS
Why should we fear a General Staff? JCS is for all intents and purposes that-without the ability to herd the CINCS. As a result we have a subordinate flag officer being publicly featured at Congressional hearings while his boss is no where to be found.
Maybe the solution is to keep Secdef and reform the COCOM system. Also a 30% cut in the number of flag officers across the board would be a good thing.
Everyone else is being downsized, what makes them so special?